Chapter thirteen. The role of the masses and individuals in history

Problems related to the role of the masses and individuals in history are included in the subject of social philosophy.

Philosophers trying to understand and comprehend the process of world history or the history of individual countries and peoples were faced with the question: what is the driving force of history, what causes and conditions the course and outcome of historical events, rise or decline in the lives of peoples, wars, uprisings, revolutions and others popular movements? At the head of all any significant events are one or another historical figure. These are people with different characters: with great will and determination or weak-willed; insightful, far-sighted, or vice versa.

These historical figures and personalities have a greater or lesser influence on the course and sometimes the outcome of events. Aren't these historical figures - Caesars, kings, tsars, political leaders, generals, ideologists - the true inspirers, movers, “culprits” of historical events, the main creators of history? Reactionary historiography attributes the creation of the Russian state to the Varangian princes, the unification of the principalities around Moscow, the gathering of Rus' to Ivan Kalita, and explains the transformation of Rus' into a powerful centralized state by the activities of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. Bourgeois and noble historians explain the English revolution of the 17th century as influenced by the personality of Cromwell.

World history is the result of the activities of great or outstanding leaders - this is the conclusion that was made by historians, philosophers, and politicians based on an examination of historical events. (idealism). The Marxist view, without in any way belittling the role of the individual, sees the primacy of society, social relations over the individual.

Of course, the role of the individual is great due to the special place and special function that it is called upon to perform.

In general form historical figures are defined as follows: these are individuals elevated by force of circumstances and personal qualities to the pedestal of history.

The question of the role of personality in history has its roots in antiquity. Already ancient scientists laid the foundation for a tradition according to which the individual and society are considered in close interrelation. But the most fruitful era in solving the question of an outstanding personality was opened by German classical idealism. According to Hegel, the most important distinguishing feature of an outstanding figure is a goal that contains such a universal that forms the basis for the existence of a people or state. It is the great people who best understand the essence of the matter, and all other people only assimilate this understanding of theirs and approve of it, or at least reconcile themselves with it. All other people follow these spiritual leaders because they feel the irresistible power of their inner spirit. People become great insofar as they want and realize great things, and, moreover, not imaginary and imaginary, but fair and necessary.

Hegel's concept had a great influence on the interpretation of questions about the subjects of history of many philosophical doctrines, including the Marxist concept. Marxists proceed from the position of the decisive role of the masses in history, while emphasizing the ability of the individual to influence the course of the historical process. Marxism removes the extremes of those historical and philosophical positions that overly emphasized either the role of the masses or individuals in the historical development of society. The roles of people and individuals in history are analyzed inextricably linked.

G. Hegel called world-historical personalities those few outstanding people whose personal interests contain a substantial element that constitutes the will of the World Spirit or the Reason of history. They are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and lead others, the masses. These people, albeit intuitively, feel and understand historical necessity and therefore, it would seem, should be in this sense free in their actions and deeds. But the tragedy of world-historical personalities is that “they do not belong to themselves, that they, like ordinary individuals, are only instruments of the World Spirit, albeit a great instrument.”

Studying the life and actions of historical figures, N. Machiavelli wrote that happiness gave them nothing except chance, which brought into their hands the material to which they could give forms according to their goals and principles. It was necessary that Moses should find the people of Israel in Egypt languishing in slavery and oppression, so that the desire to get out of such an intolerable situation would motivate them to follow him. And in order for Romulus to become the founder and king of Rome, it was necessary that at his very birth he was abandoned by everyone and removed from Alba. Indeed, the beginning of the glory of all these great people was generated by chance, but each of them was able to attach great importance to these occasions and take advantage of them for the glory and happiness of the peoples entrusted to them.”

I.V. Goethe: Napoleon, not only a brilliant historical figure, a brilliant commander and emperor, but above all a genius of “political productivity”, i.e. a figure whose unparalleled success and luck, “divine enlightenment” stemmed from the harmony between the direction of his personal activities and the interests of millions of people for whom he was able to find causes that coincided with their own aspirations.

History is made by people in accordance with objective laws. The people, according to I.A. Ilyin, there is a great divided and scattered multitude. Meanwhile, his strength, the energy of his being and self-affirmation require unity - a single center, a person, a person outstanding in intelligence and experience, expressing the legal will and state spirit of the people.

A historical figure must be assessed from the point of view of how he fulfills the tasks assigned to him by history. A progressive person accelerates the course of events. The magnitude and nature of acceleration depend on the social conditions in which the activity of a given individual takes place.

The very fact that this particular person was nominated for the role of a historical figure is an accident. The need for this promotion is determined by the historically established need of society for a person of precisely this kind to take the leading place. The fact that this particular person is born in a given country at a particular time is purely coincidental.

In the process of historical activity, both the strengths and weaknesses of the individual are revealed with particular sharpness and prominence. Both sometimes acquire enormous social meaning and influence the destinies of a nation, people, and sometimes even humanity.

Since in history the decisive and determining principle is not the individual, but the people, individuals always depend on the people.

The activity of a political leader presupposes the ability to make a deep theoretical generalization of the domestic and international situation of social practice, the achievements of science and culture in general, the ability to maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in the incredibly complex conditions of social reality and to carry out planned plans and programs. A wise statesman knows how to vigilantly monitor not only the general line of development of events, but also many particular “little things”—at the same time he can see both the forest and the trees. He must notice in time a change in the balance of social forces, and, before others, understand which path needs to be chosen, how to turn a ripe historical opportunity into reality.

A huge contribution to the development of the historical process is made by brilliant and exceptionally talented individuals who created and are creating spiritual values ​​in the field of science, technology, philosophy, literature, art, religious thought and deeds: the names of Heraclitus and Democritus, Plato and Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, Newton, Lomonosov, Mendeleev and Einstein, Goethe, Pushkin and Lermontov, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky and others. Their work left a deep mark in the history of world culture.

G. V. Plekhanov wrote about two conditions, the presence of which allows an outstanding personality to have a great influence on the socio-political, scientific, technical and artistic development of society.

Firstly, talent must make a given person more relevant than others to the social needs of a given era,

Secondly, the existing social system should not block the path of the individual with his abilities. If the old, feudal order in France had lasted an extra seventy years, then the military talents of a whole group of people led by Napoleon, some of whom were former actors, hairdressers, and lawyers, could not have emerged. When one or another outstanding personality finds himself at the forefront of historical events, he often overshadows not only other personalities, but also those mass social forces that nominated and support him, thanks to which and in the name of which he can accomplish his affairs. This is how the “cult of personality” is born.

Charismatic historical figure- a spiritually gifted person who is perceived and assessed by others as unusual, sometimes even supernatural (of divine origin) in terms of the power of comprehension and influence on people, inaccessible to an ordinary person. The bearers of charisma are heroes, creators, reformers, acting either as heralds of the divine will, or as bearers of the idea of ​​a particularly high mind, or as geniuses who go against the usual order of things.

C. de Gaulle: there must be an element of mystery in the power of a leader: the leader must not be fully understood, hence both mystery and faith.

Weber: the charismatic power of a leader is based on boundless and unconditional, moreover, joyful submission and is supported primarily by faith in the chosenness and charisma of the ruler.

A lot depends on the head of state, but, of course, not everything. Much depends on what society elected him, what forces brought him to the level of head of state. The people are not a homogeneous and unequally educated force, and the fate of the country may depend on which groups of the population were in the majority in the elections, and with what degree of understanding they carried out their civic duty. One can only say: such is the people, such is the person they choose.

Human society changes and develops over time. This development of humanity over time is history. History is “the development of human society in relation to nature, the science of this process.”

Many thinkers have thought about the question: does history move by itself (i.e., are there some laws of history) or is it moved (created) by people? Thus, the most important problem is the problem of the relationship between objective and subjective factors of history. An objective factor is understood as the laws of development of society. These patterns exist objectively and do not depend on the will and desire of individual people.

The subjective factor is a person, his desires, will, actions. The subjects of history are diverse: the people, the masses, the social group, the elite, historical figures, ordinary people.

There are many theories that explain social development or, as is often said, the historical process. The historical process is a sequential series of events in which the activities of many generations of people are embodied. Let's look at some of them. There are two extreme points of view on the relationship between objective and subjective factors: fatalism and voluntarism. Fatalism (from Latin fatalis - rock, fate). Fatalists believed that everything was predetermined, that law prevailed, and man could not change anything. He is a puppet of historical necessity. For example, in the Middle Ages, the idea of ​​divine providentialism dominated (history develops according to a plan or predestination outlined by God). Voluntarism is based on the understanding that everything depends on the will of a person, his desires, there are no objective laws of social development, and history is created by great people who have a stronger mind and will.
Modern thinkers connected the development of the laws of society with human nature and the development of the mind. For example, French enlighteners believed that the laws of social development are determined by the development of the human mind. It is enough to change only public opinion, and the whole society will change. Changes in historical stages are based on changes in social consciousness.

G. Hegel raised the question of the relationship between the objective and the subjective in history in a new way. The world spirit (world mind) develops according to objective laws. The world spirit is an individual, a people, and a state, i.e. The world spirit is embodied in specific nations and people (that is, it is embodied in the subjective factor). People pursue their interests, but very often the results they achieve differ from the goal they set. This means that the pattern of development of the World Spirit interferes. Hegel called this “the cunning of the World Mind.”

Hegel compared the actions of a person in history to the actions of an arsonist: one peasant set fire to his neighbor’s house out of hatred for him, but due to a strong wind the entire village burned down. The goal and the actual result clearly do not coincide here.

Hegel considered the problem of the role of a great personality in history. He noted that it is not great personalities themselves who create history, but history itself creates heroes. Great is the personality that expresses the development of the World Spirit.

However, one should distinguish between outstanding personalities, whose contribution to history is positive and significant for society, and historical figures, which include tyrants and dictators. There is even a catchphrase - “the glory of Herostratus” - Herostratus burned the temple of Artemis of Ephesus, wanting to become famous.

Marx and Engels also considered the interaction of objective and subjective factors, but from a materialist position. It is based on the laws of development of material production, such as the primacy of social existence in relation to social consciousness, the primacy of the basis in relation to the superstructure, the law of correspondence of production relations to the nature and level of development of the productive forces.

Objective laws do not act on their own and they do not create history, history is created by people. The objective in society (the laws of history) is manifested only in the subjective factor, only through the activities of people. The laws of history are the resultant of all the efforts of its participants.

Marxists also paid attention to the role of great personalities in history. A great personality, firstly, is the person whose activities correspond to the objective laws of social development - progress, and secondly, best expresses the interests of a certain class. The main driving force in history is not individuals, but the masses, since the people create all material and spiritual benefits. Without the participation of the masses, large-scale historical action is impossible.

Hegel and Marx noted that history is the activity of a person who pursues his goals. In history, human activity is embodied in events. Events make up the living fabric of history. History is not static, but dynamic. History is a process. Both Hegel and Marx showed the dialectic of objective and subjective in society, showed that the objective in society is manifested only through the subjective.

Let us summarize the theories that explain the course of history: 1) history moves “according to a predetermined plan (divine or logical)”; 2) the character and development of society are “determined by material factors” (for example, climate, geographical conditions); 3) the laws of history are “the resultant of all the efforts of its participants.”

Thus, we will answer the question: what and who moves history. Both the objective course of events and the conscious activity of people matter.

“Historical circumstances provide different possibilities for their further development. The choice is presented to the actors.” A person has an influence on a historical event. The main subject (creator) of history is man. These are both the people (large masses of people) and individuals... “In history there is an opportunity for self-expression not only of great personalities, but also of the most ordinary people.”

More or less detailed concepts and theoretically formulated views on the problem of the role of the individual appear only in the 19th century. However, throughout this century, the general framework of discussion on this problem lay within certain rigid boundaries. In the words of G.V. Plekhanov, the clash of views on this issue often took the form of “an antinomy, the first member of which was general laws, and the second – the activities of individuals. From the point of view of the second member of the antinomy, history seemed to be a simple concatenation of accidents; from the point of view of its first member, it seemed that even the individual features of historical events were determined by the action of general causes.” Only at the end of the 19th century. managed to somewhat (and then relatively) push these boundaries.

In the first decades of the 19th century, during the period of the dominance of romanticism, a turn occurred in the interpretation of the question of the role of the individual. The ideas of the enlighteners mentioned above were replaced by approaches that placed the individual in the appropriate historical environment. And if the enlighteners tried to explain the state of society by the laws issued by the rulers, then the romantics, on the contrary, derived government laws from the nature of society, and explained changes in its state by historical circumstances. In general, it is not surprising that the romantics and movements close to them had little interest in the role of historical figures, since they paid their main attention to the “national spirit” in different eras and in various manifestations. In particular, the historical school of law in Germany proceeded from the fact that changes in law are the result mainly of deep processes occurring within the “folk spirit”. Of course, there was a lot of truth in this approach (if we discard some of the mysticism associated with the ontologization of the “national spirit”), but there was an obvious underestimation of the creative role of individuals, in particular individual legislators. But at the same time, it was with romanticism that the desire to portray great people was established - in contrast to what the enlighteners did - in an exaggeratedly enthusiastic (truly romantic) manner.

Opposing views on the role of the individual in the 19th century. Praising heroes and kings. The English philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) was one of those who returned to the idea of ​​the prominent role of individuals, “heroes” in history. One of his most famous works, which had a very strong influence on his contemporaries and descendants, was called “Heroes and the Heroic in History.” According to Carlyle, world history is the biography of great men. Carlyle focuses in his works on certain individuals and their roles, preaches high goals and feelings, and writes a number of brilliant biographies. He says much less about the masses. In his opinion, the masses are often only instruments in the hands of great personalities. According to Carlyle, there is a kind of historical circle, or cycle. When the heroic principle in a society weakens, then the hidden destructive forces of the masses can break out (in revolutions and uprisings), and they act until society again discovers within itself “true heroes”, leaders (such as Cromwell or Napoleon).

Searching for opportunities to fit the personality into the process and era. In the 19th century, therefore, there was a search for combining recognition of the greatness of certain historical figures with the processes of historical development. In the first two-thirds of the century, these processes were especially often associated with the development of the self-awareness (spirit) of the people. And since this development of peoples and societies is always associated with one or another major historical figure, the topic of the role of the individual has become quite popular even among romantics. That is why many major historians have discussed it in more or less detail. Moreover, not all of them viewed historical figures from the position of providentialism and religious idealism (although the Hegelian influence is felt very strongly). On the contrary, a number of historians are trying to identify completely earthly (both material and ideal) factors as the driving forces of history and enter into this search the significance of historical figures. As an example, we can point out such a Russian historian as S. M. Solovyov, whose general idea is that a historical figure should be inscribed in the character of his time and people, that his activities satisfy the people's needs and allow them to be realized. A historical figure can be a prominent, main figure, but not the creator of a phenomenon arising from the general laws of national life (Soloviev 1989: 416-426). Indeed, no individual is capable of creating great eras if there are no accumulated conditions for this in society.

The question of the capabilities of the individual, its correspondence to the time and people, was considered in this era from various angles. The German historian Karl Lamprecht (1856-1915), author of the 12-volume History of Germany, whom Plekhanov cites, in particular, comes to the conclusion that the general character of the era is an empirically given necessity for a great man. But, undoubtedly, it is not so easy to establish the limits of this necessity. Lamprecht himself provides what he considers an irrefutable illustration when he asks: could Bismarck have returned Germany to subsistence farming? It would seem that the answer is obvious. And the framework of “necessity” has been found. But very soon (during the First World War) it suddenly turns out that in this very Germany everything begins to be distributed on ration cards. Who would have thought?! And in another twenty years, a planned “natural” economy will emerge in Russia and Germany, in which money will no longer play its previous role. And worse than that, slavery is being revived. And if, together with Lamprecht, one were to ask: is it possible to revive slavery in Germany and Russia, then who could imagine that it is possible? Thus, a completely fair formulation of the question about the limits of an individual’s capabilities does not allow for a simple answer.

In the last decades of the 19th century. and at the beginning of the twentieth century. In debates around the problem of the role of personality, arguments drawn from the natural and human sciences are increasingly being used.

W. James (1842-1910), a famous American pragmatist philosopher, was one of those who, at the center of the problem of the role of the individual, put the question of his environment in the broad sense of the word and the correspondence of the individual to the environment. W. James outlined his rather interesting concept in the lecture “The Great Man and His Entourage.” James argues with the Spencerians, who gave the main role in changes to evolution and the interaction of society and the environment, significantly underestimating the role of the individual. He believed that the main reason that causes societies to change from generation to generation is associated with the accumulation of influence of individuals, their example, initiative and decisions.

James takes a very original approach. He takes as an analogy Darwin's theory of the influence of the environment on natural selection and change in species. A philosopher, according to James, must take geniuses as a given, just as a biologist takes Darwin’s “spontaneous variations” as a given (that is, spontaneous mutations, according to modern genetics. - L.G.). And the role of the individual will depend on the degree of its correspondence to the social environment, era, moment, etc. James introduces the concept of the individual’s sensitivity to the historical situation/moment, period, time. Changes in societies from generation to generation, according to James, are directly or indirectly caused mainly by the activities or example of individuals. Moreover, either the genius of these people turned out to be so in tune with the peculiarities of their time (corresponded to a certain moment), or their accidental position in power was so important that they became the inspirers or initiators of the movement, created a precedent or style, turned into a center of spiritual decay or the cause of the death of others people whose talents, if given the opportunity to play freely, would lead society in a different direction.

Marxism. The strength of Marxism was that it was able to formulate a fairly complete and convincing theory that explained the course of the historical process by material factors. However, although Marxism completely broke with providentialism and theology, it inherited from the objective idealistic philosophy of Hegel the conviction that historical laws are invariant, that is, they must be realized under any circumstances (maximum variation: somewhat earlier or later, lighter or heavier, more or somewhat less complete).

Despite the fact that major Marxists often interestingly posed questions related to the problem of the individual in history and sometimes gave interesting answers, in general, in a situation of economic determinism, the role of the individual in history seemed small. The desire to oppose individuals and masses in favor of the latter, laws and accidents almost exclusively in favor of the former, significantly contributed to this result.

A number of provisions regarding the role of the individual in a classic form for Marxism were formulated by Engels, but most systematically set out in the work of G.V. Plekhanov “On the Question of the Role of the Individual in History” (1956). Marxists believed that a personality can give historical events some originality or, as Plekhanov put it, a personality can only leave an individual imprint on the inevitable course of events, speed up or slow down the implementation of historical law, but is not able under any circumstances to change the programmed course of history. And if one person were not there, then she would certainly be replaced by another, who would fulfill exactly the same historical role.

Recognizing the development of productive forces as the main, most general historical cause, Plekhanov writes: “Next to this general cause, special causes operate, that is, the historical situation in which the development of the productive forces of a given people occurs,” and “the influence of special causes is complemented by the action of individual causes, then there are personal characteristics of public figures and their “accidents”, thanks to which events finally receive their own individual physiognomy.” But “single causes cannot produce fundamental changes in the action of general and special causes, which also determine the direction and limits of the influence of single causes.”

It is clear that Plekhanov proceeds not simply from the linearity of the historical process, but from always and everywhere a complete subordination and hierarchy of causes. Meanwhile, in history there are many cases of turning points, “bifurcations,” fateful ones, etc., when it is “small” reasons that influence the possibility of realizing a trend, when different forces collide, etc. It is in such situations that the role of the individual becomes very important and even decisive. A huge number of historical situations and phenomena are also associated with the presence of a certain force, system, etc., the very existence of which depends on a mass of reasons of different ranks, including the quality and capabilities (luck) of individuals.

Plekhanov involuntarily proceeds from the idea of ​​realizing the meaning of history before the events took place. Moreover, his logic at first glance contradicts the well-known thought of F. Engels. “History is made in such a way,” the latter wrote, “that the final result is always obtained from the collisions of many individual wills, and each of these wills becomes what it is, again thanks to a mass of special life circumstances... what one wants , meets opposition from everyone else, and the end result is something that no one wanted.” However, both Engels and other Marxists perceive individuals mainly as auxiliary driving forces, believing that behind the actions of many individuals there are much more influential historical forces that must inevitably implement the laws they have discovered.

But there are no inevitable laws that act in spite of everything, with “iron necessity,” and cannot exist in history. Firstly, the global totality of societies is a complex system in which the roles of certain states are not at all the same (and, consequently, the paths of development are significantly different). Therefore, for example, a delay in reforms due to the fact that there was not an outstanding, but a mediocre person in power, can be fatal for a particular society, which because of this can fall behind and become dependent (as, for example, happened in China in the 19th century). c., while Japan managed to rebuild itself and began to make seizures).

Secondly, determinists did not sufficiently take into account that a person not only acts in certain circumstances, but when circumstances allow, to a certain extent creates them according to his own understanding and characteristics. For example, in the era of Muhammad at the beginning of the 7th century. Arab tribes and chiefdoms felt the need for a new religion (ideology), and various kinds of prophets and ideologists appeared among them. But what a new religion could become in its real incarnation largely depended on a specific individual. And the rules established by Muhammad, written down sacred texts, laws, etc., often created under the influence of certain circumstances, personal experience, etc., then turned into canons, which played and still play a very important role. And most importantly: the Arabs, of course, could have found a different religion, but would it have become a world religion without Muhammad?

Thirdly, many events, including, for example, the socialist revolution in Russia (namely it, and not the revolution in Russia in general), must be recognized as a result that might not have come to fruition at all without the coincidence of a number of coincidences, the outstanding role of Lenin and, to a lesser extent, - Trotsky. Similar views were analyzed, in particular, in the work of S. Hook (Hook 1955).

Plekhanov tries to be objective, but this is impossible if one stands from the point of view of his “monistic” approach to history. In particular, he writes that the role of the individual and the boundaries of his activity are determined by the organization of society, and “the character of the individual is a “factor” of such development only there, only then and only insofar as where, when and insofar as social relations allow it.” In general, this is largely true. But this begs the question: what are the possibilities of the individual if social relations allow him to become a “factor of such development”? In this situation, can’t development become more dependent on the desires and personal qualities of the ruler, who will begin to concentrate the forces of society in the direction he needs, than on other reasons? Thus, if the nature of society gives scope to arbitrariness (a very common case in history), then Plekhanov’s indicated position does not allow answering many questions.

However, if - which is the only correct thing - we proceed from the fact that in different situations the influence of different forces can have different results, then the personality in some situations - but not in all - becomes a very important and even the most important factor.

Lenin, in a number of his works, also touches on the problem of the role of the individual, as does Trotsky in his two-volume “History of the Russian Revolution,” first published in Germany in 1932. But while some thoughts deserve attention, there is nothing original in this regard compared to other Marxists. did not do.

Mikhailovsky's theory. Personality and the masses. In the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries. The ideas of a lone individual who, thanks to the strength of his character and intellect, could accomplish incredible things, including turning the course of history, were very popular. Revolutionary-minded young people were especially susceptible to them. It is not surprising that the question of the role of personality was quite popular at this time. This brought into focus the problem of the relationship between the “hero” and the masses (crowd). Among those who sharply contrasted heroes and masses, P. L. Lavrov occupies a prominent place. Lavrov’s concept is not devoid of originality, but it has an openly propaganda orientation. Lavrov's view is the direct opposite of Carlyle's approach. In his “Historical Letters,” published in 1868, in particular in Letter Five, “The Action of Individuals,” Lavrov contrasts a handful of educated and creative minorities, which are not particularly useful to the people, but can only exist due to the fact that the majority has created everything for them conditions, and a downtrodden majority, crushed by work and difficulties. Lavrov needs this in order to call on intelligent youth to atone for their guilt before the people and to bring them all possible benefit. But at the same time, Lavrov excessively exaggerates the role of so-called critically thinking individuals, that is, revolutionaries, in the matter of “human progress.”

A significant contribution to the development of this problem was made by N.K. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904). In his articles “Heroes and the Crowd” (1882), “Scientific Letters (on the Question of Heroes and the Crowd)” (1884), “More about Heroes” (1891), “More about the Crowd” (1893) he formulates a new theory and shows that by personality it is not necessary to understand an outstanding personality, but, in principle, any personality who, by chance, found himself in a certain situation at the head or simply ahead of the masses. Mikhailovsky does not develop this topic in detail in relation to historical figures (almost more often he cites literary examples or what in Pushkin’s time were called historical anecdotes). His article rather has a psychological aspect, somewhat similar to the theory of the role of imitation by G. Tarde, set out in the latter’s famous work “The Laws of Imitation.”

The meaning of Mikhailovsky’s ideas (which is sometimes lost behind some confusion of presentation) is that a person, regardless of his qualities, can at certain moments sharply strengthen the crowd (audience, group) with his emotional and other actions and moods, which is why the entire action acquires special power. In short, the role of the individual depends on the extent to which its psychological impact is enhanced by the perception of the masses.

We have to regret that Mikhailovsky did not find the opportunity to somehow systematically present his ideas about the role of the individual in history (which Mikhailovsky himself, as well as Kareev and other researchers, very much regretted. If we interpret Mikhailovsky’s ideas in a certain direction, we can say that the role of the individual depends on what force it leads or directs, since the strength of the individual due to this increases many times over.With this interpretation, one of the important aspects of the problem of the role of the individual - the relationship between the individual and the masses - receives a more adequate solution.

Somewhat similar conclusions, but significantly clearer and supplemented by his Marxist class position (concerning more or less organized masses, and not a simple crowd), were later made by K. Kautsky. “The historical... influence of an individual,” he wrote, “depends primarily on the strength of the class or group whose trust this individual has won and of which he acts as a representative. The aggregate forces of this group or class then seem to the historian to be the personal strength of their representatives. Therefore, the powers of this personality can assume superhuman proportions in the description.”

personality history time people

Ministry of Education and Science of the Nizhny Novgorod Region

State educational institution

Nizhny Novgorod State Engineering and Economic Institute

(GOU VPO NGIEI)

Faculty of Economics

Department of Humanities

By discipline:

On the topic: “The role of personality in history”

Is done by a student

Checked:

Abstract plan

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...…3

1. The role of personality in history: strategic mind, character and will of the leader……..4

2. Charismatic historical figure…………………………………...11

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….14

List of used literature……………………………………………………...15

Introduction

Assessing the role of personality in history belongs to the category of the most difficult and ambiguously solved philosophical problems, despite the fact that it has occupied and continues to occupy many outstanding minds to this day.

As L.E. figuratively put it. Grinin, this problem is from the category of “eternal”, and the ambiguity of its solution is inextricably linked in many ways to the existing differences in approaches to the very essence of the historical process. And the range of opinions is, accordingly, very wide, but in general everything revolves around two polar ideas. Or the fact that historical laws (in the words of K. Marx) “with iron necessity” make their way through obstacles, and this naturally leads to the idea that everything in the future is predetermined. Or the fact that chance can always change the course of history, and then, therefore, it makes no sense to talk about any laws. Therefore, there are attempts to extremely exaggerate the role of the individual and, on the contrary, to assert that figures other than those who existed could not have appeared. Middle-of-the-road views tend to end up leaning towards one extreme or the other. And today, just like a hundred years ago, “the clash of these two views takes the form of an antinomy, the first member of which was social laws, the second - the activities of individuals. From the point of view of the second member of the antinomy, history seemed to be a simple concatenation of accidents; from the point of view of its first member, it seemed that even the individual features of historical events were determined by the action of general causes” (Plekhanov, “On the question of the role of personality in history”).

The purpose of this work is to highlight the current state of development of ideas on the problem of the role of the individual in history.

1. The role of personality in history: strategic mind, character and

will of the leader

At times, social thinkers exaggerated the role of the individual, especially statesmen, believing that almost everything is decided by outstanding people. Kings, tsars, political leaders, generals supposedly can and do control the entire course of history, like a kind of puppet theater. Of course, the role of the individual is great due to the special place and special function that it is called upon to perform.

The philosophy of history puts a historical figure in his rightful place in the system of social reality, pointing out the real social forces that push him onto the historical stage, and shows what he can do in history and what he cannot do.

In general terms, historical figures are defined as follows: these are individuals elevated by force of circumstances and personal qualities to the pedestal of history.

World-historical personalities, or heroes, G. Hegel called those few outstanding people whose personal interests contain a substantial element that makes up the will of the World Spirit or the Reason of history. They draw their goals and their calling not from the calm, orderly course of things, but from a source whose contents are hidden, which “is still underground and knocks on the outside world, like on a shell, breaking it.” They are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and lead others, the masses. These people, albeit intuitively, feel and understand historical necessity and therefore, it would seem, should be in this sense free in their actions and deeds. But the tragedy of world-historical personalities is that “they do not belong to themselves, that they, like ordinary individuals, are only instruments of the World Spirit, albeit a great instrument. Fate, as a rule, turns out unhappily for them, because their calling is to be authorized, trusted representatives of the World Spirit, carrying out its necessary historical procession through them and through them... And as soon as the World Spirit achieves its goals thanks to them , he no longer needs them and they “fall off like an empty shell of grain.”

Studying the life and actions of historical figures, one can notice, N. Machiavelli wrote, that happiness gave them nothing except chance, which brought into their hands the material to which they could give forms according to their goals and principles; without such an occasion, their valor could fade away without application; Without their personal merits, the opportunity that gave them power would not have been fruitful and could have passed without a trace. It was necessary, for example, that Moses should find the people of Israel in Egypt languishing in slavery and oppression, so that the desire to get out of such an intolerable situation would motivate them to follow him. And in order for Romulus to become the founder and king of Rome, it was necessary that at his very birth he was abandoned by everyone and removed from Alba. And Cyrus “needed to find the Persians dissatisfied with Median domination, and the Medes weakened and pampered from the long peace. Theseus would not have been able to show the brilliance of his valor in everything if he had not found the Athenians weakened and scattered. Indeed, the beginning of the glory of all these great people was generated by chance, but each of them, only by the power of his talents, was able to attach great significance to these cases and use them for the glory and happiness of the peoples entrusted to them.”

According to I.V. Goethe, Napoleon, is not only a brilliant historical figure, a brilliant commander and emperor, but above all a genius of “political productivity”, i.e. a figure whose unparalleled success and luck, “divine enlightenment” stemmed from the harmony between the direction of his personal activities and the interests of millions of people for whom he was able to find causes that coincided with their own aspirations. “In any case, his personality towered above all others. But the most important thing is that people, by submitting to him, hoped to thereby better achieve their own goals. That is why they followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with this kind of confidence.”

History is made by people in accordance with objective laws. The people, according to I.A. Ilyin, there is a great divided and scattered multitude. Meanwhile, his strength, the energy of his being and self-affirmation require unity. The unity of the people requires an obvious, spiritual-volitional embodiment - a single center, a person of outstanding intelligence and experience, expressing the legal will and state spirit of the people. The people need a wise leader, like dry land needs good rain. According to Plato, the world will only become happy when wise men become kings or kings become wise men. In fact, said Cicero, the strength of a people is more terrible when it has no leader; the leader feels that he will be responsible for everything, and is concerned about this, while the people, blinded by passion, do not see the dangers to which they expose themselves.

Throughout the history of mankind, a huge number of events have happened, and they have always been directed by individuals who differ in their moral character and intelligence: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre, strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary. Having become, by chance or by necessity, the head of a state, army, popular movement, political party, a person can have different influences on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from indifferent to whose hands political, state and administrative power in general is concentrated. The promotion of an individual is determined by both the needs of society and the personal qualities of people. “The distinctive feature of true statesmen lies precisely in being able to take advantage of every need, and sometimes even turn a fatal coincidence of circumstances for the benefit of the state.”

A historical figure must be assessed from the point of view of how he fulfills the tasks assigned to him by history. A progressive person accelerates the course of events. The magnitude and nature of acceleration depend on the social conditions in which the activity of a given individual takes place.

The very fact that this particular person was nominated for the role of a historical figure is an accident. The need for this promotion is determined by the historically established need of society for a person of precisely this kind to take the leading place. N.M. Karamzin said this about Peter the Great: the people gathered for a campaign, waited for the leader, and the leader appeared! The fact that this particular person is born in a given country at a particular time is purely coincidental. But if we eliminate this person, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement is found. Of course, one cannot imagine the matter in such a way that social need itself is capable of immediately giving birth to a brilliant politician or commander: life is too complex to be put into this simple scheme. Nature is not so generous in giving birth to geniuses, and their path is thorny. Often, due to historical conditions, very capable people and even mediocre ones have to play a very prominent role. W. Shakespeare wisely said about this: little people become great when great people are translated. The psychological observation of J. La Bruyère is noteworthy: high places make great people even greater, and low people even lower. Democritus also spoke in the same spirit: the less worthy bad citizens are of the honorary positions they receive, the more careless they become and filled with stupidity and impudence.” In this regard, a fair warning: “Beware of taking, by chance, a post that is beyond your capacity, so as not to appear to be something you are not in reality.”

In the process of historical activity, both the strengths and weaknesses of the individual are revealed with particular sharpness and prominence; both sometimes acquire enormous social meaning and influence the destinies of the nation, people, and sometimes even humanity.

Since in history the decisive and determining principle is not the individual, but the people, individuals always depend on the people, like a tree on the soil on which it grows. If the power of the legendary Antaeus lay in his connection with the earth, then the social power of the individual lay in his connection with the people. But only a genius can subtly “eavesdrop” on the thoughts of the people. Be whatever autocrat you want, wrote A.I. Herzen, you will still be a float on the water, which, indeed, remains at the top and seems to be in charge of it, but in essence is carried by the water and rises and falls with its level. A man is very strong, a man placed in a royal place is even stronger, but here again the old thing: he is strong only with the flow and the stronger the more he understands it, but the flow continues even when he does not understand it and even when he resists him. An interesting historical detail. Catherine II, when asked by a foreigner why the nobility obeys her so unconditionally, replied: “Because I order them only what they themselves want.”

No matter how brilliant a historical figure may be, his actions are determined by the prevailing totality of social events. If a person begins to act arbitrarily and elevate his whims into law, then he becomes a brake and, ultimately, from the position of a coachman of the carriage of history, inevitably falls under its merciless wheels.

At the same time, the deterministic nature of both events and personality behavior leaves a lot of scope for identifying its individual characteristics. With his insight, organizational talents and efficiency, a person can help avoid, say, unnecessary casualties in a war. His mistakes inevitably cause serious damage to the movement, causing unnecessary casualties and even defeat. “The fate of a people rapidly approaching political decline can only be averted by genius.”

The activity of a political leader presupposes the ability to make a deep theoretical generalization of the domestic and international situation, social practice, achievements of science and culture in general, the ability to maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in the incredibly difficult conditions of social reality and to carry out planned plans and programs. A wise statesman knows how to vigilantly monitor not only the general line of events, but also many particular “little things” - to see both the forest and the trees at the same time. He must notice in time a change in the balance of social forces, and, before others, understand which path needs to be chosen, how to turn a ripe historical opportunity into reality. As Confucius said, a person who does not look far will certainly face near troubles.

High power, however, also carries heavy responsibilities. The Bible says: “To whom much is given, much will be required” (Matt. 25:24-28; Luke 12:48; 1 Cor. 4:2).

Historical figures, thanks to certain qualities of their mind, will, character, thanks to their experience, knowledge, moral character, can only change the individual form of events and some of their particular consequences. They cannot change their general direction, much less turn history back: this is beyond the strength of individuals, no matter how strong they may be.

We focused primarily on government officials. But a huge contribution to the development of the historical process is made by brilliant and exceptionally talented individuals who have created and are creating spiritual values ​​in the field of science, technology, philosophy, literature, art, religious thought and deeds. Humanity will always honor the names of Heraclitus and Democritus, Plato and Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, Copernicus and Newton, Lomonosov, Mendeleev and Einstein, Shakespeare and Goethe, Pushkin and Lermontov, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Beethoven, Mozart and Tchaikovsky and many, many others. Their work left a deep imprint in the history of world culture.

To create something, said I.V. Goethe, you have to be something. To be great, you need to do something great, or more precisely, you need to be able to do great things. Nobody knows how people become great. The greatness of a person is determined by his innate inclinations, acquired qualities of mind and character, and circumstances. Genius is inseparable from heroism. The heroes contrast their new principles of life with the old ones, on which existing morals and institutions rest. As destroyers of the old, they are declared criminals and die in the name of new ideas.

Personal gifts, talent and genius play a colossal role in spiritual creativity. Geniuses are usually considered lucky, forgetting that this happiness is the result of asceticism. A genius is a person who is embraced by a great plan, has a powerful mind, a vivid imagination, enormous will, and colossal perseverance in achieving his goals. It enriches society with new discoveries, inventions, new directions in science and art. Voltaire subtly noted: a lack of money, but of people and talents, makes a state weak. A genius creates something new. He has to, first of all, assimilate what was done before him, create something new and defend this new in the fight against the old. The more gifted, the more talented, the more brilliant a person is, the more creativity he brings into his work and, therefore, the more intense this work should be: there cannot be a genius without exceptional energy and efficiency. The very inclination and ability to work are the most important components of true giftedness, talent and genius.

2. Charismatic historical figure

Charismatic is a spiritually gifted person who is perceived and assessed by others as unusual, sometimes even supernatural (of divine origin) in terms of the power of comprehension and influence on people, inaccessible to an ordinary person. The bearers of charisma (from the Greek charisma - mercy, gift of grace) are heroes, creators, reformers, acting either as heralds of the divine will, or as bearers of the idea of ​​a particularly high mind, or as geniuses who go against the usual order of things. The uniqueness of a charismatic personality is recognized by everyone, but the moral and historical assessment of their activities is far from ambiguous. I. Kant, for example, denied charisma, i.e. human greatness, from the standpoint of Christian morality. But F. Nietzsche considered the appearance of heroes necessary and even inevitable.

Charles de Gaulle, himself a charismatic person, once noted that in the power of a leader there must be an element of mystery, a kind of “hidden charm of mystery”: the leader must not be fully understood, hence both mystery and faith. Faith and inspiration itself are constantly fueled and thereby supported by the charismatic leader through a miracle, indicating that he is the legitimate “son of heaven,” and at the same time the success and well-being of his admirers. But as soon as his gift weakens or comes to naught and is no longer supported by deeds, faith in him and his authority based on it waver and ultimately disappear altogether.

The phenomenon of charisma has its roots in the depths of history, in pagan times. At the dawn of mankind, in primitive communities there appeared people who had a special gift; they stood out from the ordinary. In an extraordinary state of ecstasy, they could exhibit clairvoyant, telepathic and therapeutic effects. Their abilities were very different in their effectiveness. This kind of talent was called, for example, among the Iroquois “orenda”, “magic”, and among the Iranians a similar kind of gift was called charisma by M. Weber. Carriers of charisma had the ability to exert an external or internal influence on their relatives, due to which they became leaders and leaders, for example, in hunting. Their power, unlike the power of traditional leaders, was largely based on faith in their supernatural powers. Apparently, the very logic of life required this.

Weber identified this special type of charismatic power, contrasting it with traditional types. According to Weber, the charismatic power of a leader is based on boundless and unconditional, moreover, joyful submission and is supported primarily by faith in the chosenness and charisma of the ruler.

In Weber's concept, the question of the presence of charisma was one of the essential ones in the interpretation of the dominance of a person who possessed this gift over his relatives. At the same time, the owner of charisma himself was considered exactly as such, depending on the corresponding opinion about him, on the recognition of just such a gift for him, which increased the effectiveness of his manifestation. If those who believed in his gift were disappointed and he ceased to be perceived as a charismatic personality, then this changed attitude was perceived as clear evidence of “abandonment by his god” and the loss of his magical properties. Consequently, recognition of the presence of charisma in a particular person did not mean that new relations with the “world”, introduced by virtue of their special purpose by a charismatic leader, acquire the status of lifelong “legitimacy”. Recognition of this gift psychologically remains a personal matter, based on faith and inspiration, hope, need and inclination.

At the same time, it is important to note that if the environment of a leader of the traditional type is formed according to the principle of noble origin or personal dependence, then the environment of a charismatic leader can be a “community” of students, warriors, co-religionists, i.e. this is a kind of caste-“party” community, which is formed on charismatic grounds: the disciples correspond to the prophet, the retinue to the military leader, the trusted people to the leader. Charismatic dominance excludes groups of people whose core is a leader of the traditional type. In a word, a charismatic leader surrounds himself with those in whom he intuitively and by the power of his mind guesses and grasps a similar gift to himself, but “shorter in stature.”

In order to captivate the masses with his plans, a charismatic leader can allow himself to resort to all sorts of irrational orgies that weaken or even completely remove natural, moral and religious foundations. To do this, he must elevate the orgy in its sublimated form to the level of a deep sacrament.

Thus, Weber’s concept of charismatic dominance in many ways highlights problems that are relevant for subsequent generations, specialists in the phenomenon of leadership at various levels and the very essence of this phenomenon.

Conclusion

The ambiguity and versatility of the problem of the role of the individual in history requires an adequate, multilateral approach to its solution, taking into account as many reasons as possible that determine the place and role of the individual in a particular moment of historical development. The combination of these reasons is called a situation factor, the analysis of which allows not only to combine different points of view, localizing them and “cutting down” their claims, but also facilitates the methodological study of a specific case, without in any way predetermining the result of the study.

A historical figure is capable of speeding up or delaying the solution of pressing problems, giving the solution special features, and using the opportunities provided with talent or incompetence. If a certain person managed to do something, it means that there were already potential opportunities for this in the depths of society. No individual is capable of creating great eras if there are no accumulated conditions in society. Moreover, the presence of a more or less corresponding personality to social tasks is something predetermined, rather accidental, although quite probable.

In conclusion, we can say that in any form of government, one or another person is promoted to the level of the head of state, who is called upon to play an extremely responsible role in the life and development of a given society. A lot depends on the head of state, but, of course, not everything. Much depends on what society elected him, what forces brought him to the level of head of state. The people are not a homogeneous and equally educated force, and the fate of the country may depend on which groups of the population were in the majority in the elections and with what degree of understanding they carried out their civic duty. One can only say: such is the people, such is the person they choose.

List of used literature

1. Alekseev, P.V. Social philosophy: Textbook. manual - M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2004. - 256 p.

2. Kon, I.S. In search of oneself: Personality and its self-awareness. M.: 1999.

Role personalities V stories Russia Suvorov A.V. Abstract >> History

Often philosophy, when developing this problem, exaggerated the role of the individual in the historical process and, above all, of statesmen, while believing that almost everything is decided by outstanding individuals. Kings, tsars, political leaders, generals, supposedly, can control all of history and control it, like a kind of puppet theater, where there are puppeteers and puppets. Historical figures are individuals placed on the pedestal of history by force of circumstances and personal qualities. Hegel called world-historical personalities those few outstanding people whose personal interests contain substantial components: will, world spirit or the mind of history. “They draw their strength, goals and their calling from a source, the contents of which are hidden, which is still underground and knocking on the outside world, like on a shell, breaking it” (Hegel. Works. Vol. IX, p. 98).

“Studying the life and work of historical figures, one can notice,” Machiavelli wrote in “The Prince,” “that happiness gave them nothing except chance, which brought into their hands the material to which they could give forms according to their goals and principles; without such chance, their valor could fade away without application; without their personal merits, the chance that gave them power would not have been fruitful and could have passed without a trace." It was necessary, for example, that Moses should find the people of Israel in Egypt languishing in slavery and oppression, so that the desire to escape from such an intolerable situation would motivate them to follow him.

According to Goethe, Napoleon became a historical figure, first of all, not because of his personal qualities (he, however, had many), but the most important thing is that “people, by submitting to him, expected thereby to achieve their own goals. That is why they followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with this kind of confidence" (Goethe. Collected works. T., 15. pp. 44-45). Interesting in this regard is Plato’s statement: “The world will only become happy when wise men become kings or kings become wise men” (Quoted from: Eckerman. Conversations with Goethe. M., 1981, p. 449). No less interesting is the opinion of Cicero, who believed that the power of a people is more terrible when it does not have a leader. The leader feels that he will be responsible for everything, and is concerned about this, while the people, blinded by passion, do not see the danger to which they are exposing themselves.

Having become, by chance or by necessity, the head of a state, a person can have different influences on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is more often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from indifferent in whose hands political and state power is concentrated. A lot depends on her. V. Hugo wrote: “The distinctive feature of true statesmen lies precisely in this: to take advantage of every necessity, and sometimes even to turn a fatal coincidence of circumstances for the benefit of the state” (Hugo V. Collected works. Vol. 15, p. 44 -45). The leader alone, if he is a genius, must subtly “eavesdrop” on the thoughts of the people. In this regard, the reasoning of A.I. is curious. Herzen: “A man is very strong, a man placed in a royal place is even stronger. But here again is the old thing: he is strong with the flow and the stronger the more he understands it. But the flow continues even when he does not understand it and even when he resists him" (quoted from: Lichtenberg G. Aphorisms. M., 1983, p. 144).

This historical detail is curious. Catherine the Second, when asked by a foreigner why the nobility obeyed her so unconditionally, replied: “Because I order them only what they themselves want.” But high power, however, also carries heavy responsibilities. The Bible says: “To whom much is given, much will be required” (Matthew: 95,24-28; Luke: 12, 48). Do all past and present rulers know and follow these commandments?

An outstanding personality must have high charisma. Charisma is a “divine spark”, an exceptional gift, outstanding abilities that are “from nature”, “from God”. The term and its development in relation to a particular leader are given in the sociological theories of Troeltsch and Max Weber. A charismatic personality itself spiritually influences its environment. The surroundings of a charismatic leader can be a “community” of disciples, warriors, co-religionists, that is, it is a kind of “caste-party” community that is formed on charismatic grounds: the disciples correspond to the prophet, the retinue to the military leader, the confidants to the leader. A charismatic leader surrounds himself with those in whom he intuitively and with the power of mind guesses and grasps a gift similar to himself, but “shorter in stature.” It seems that of all the above concepts about the place and role of a leader, a manager, the most acceptable seems to be such a happy option when a sage becomes the head of the state, but not on his own, not a sage for himself, but a sage who clearly and timely captures the mood of the people who have entrusted power to him, who knows how to make his people happy and prosperous.